IN RE LYDIAH NIEDZIELSKI MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LYDIAH NIEDZIELSKI, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 12, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231196
Mecosta Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 97-003159-NA
NEIL COUCH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHANNON NIEDZIELSKI,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Talbot and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant, Neil Couch, appeals as of right from an order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (j) and (l);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (j) and (l). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights
because there was not clear and convincing evidence supporting termination. We disagree. We
review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights under the clearly erroneous standard.
MCR 5.974(I); In re Cornet, 422 Mich 274, 277; 373 NW2d 536 (1985). A finding is clearly
erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 455 NW2d 161
(1989). We are required to give regard to the special ability of the trial court to judge the
credibility of the witnesses before it. MCR 2.613(C); In re Miller, supra.
After reviewing the record in the present case, we conclude that the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing
evidence. Lydiah was born May 11, 1998, and placed in foster care soon after. On November 5,
-1-
1998, respondent-appellant’s parental rights to another child were terminated pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (c)(ii); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (c)(ii). The order of
termination was affirmed by this Court.1
The record indicates that respondent-appellant made some efforts to comply with
conditions of his parent/agency treatment plan. Records filed by Arizona caseworkers suggest
that while living in Arizona during much of the adjudication of this case, respondent-appellant
took part in some counseling and parenting classes. Lydiah was sent to live with relatives of
respondent-appellant in Arizona in March 1999, allowing respondent-appellant regular visitation.
However, as a result of a dispute between respondent-appellant and those relatives, the relatives
were no longer willing to care for Lydiah and she was sent back to live with maternal relatives in
Michigan in June 1999.
Respondent-appellant acknowledged visiting Lydiah only one time between June 1999
and the October 2000 termination hearing. That single visit was incidental to a review hearing in
March 2000. Respondent-appellant did not take part in a two-week court-ordered period of
visitation in May 2000. At the termination hearing, respondent-appellant admitted that he had
not inquired as to Lydiah’s well-being between the time she returned to Michigan and the
termination hearing. Furthermore, while it appears that respondent-appellant maintained his own
apartment in Arizona for one year prior to termination, there was evidence to support a finding
that he had not complied with the other goals of his parent-agency treatment plan. The record
reveals that respondent-appellant last took part in therapy and anger management counseling in
October 1999, and had not provided the FIA with verification that he completed any counseling
program. Respondent-appellant also did not complete parenting classes or provide verification of
adequate daycare as of the date of the termination hearing. Respondent-appellant was living with
his grandparents in a two-bedroom residence at the time of termination. He acknowledged that
he provided only a nominal amount of support for Lydiah since her birth. Overall, the record
supports a finding that respondent-appellant was unable to care for Lydiah and could not provide
a safe, suitable home for the child. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to Lydiah. MCR 5.974(I); Cornet, supra.
Respondent-appellant also argues that termination of his parental rights was contrary to
Lydiah’s best interests. At the time of the termination hearing, Lydiah was placed with maternal
relatives along with her two siblings. By all indications, Lydiah was thriving in that
environment. While respondent-appellant was gainfully employed and expressed interest in
regaining custody of Lydiah, a review of the record as a whole suggests that respondent-appellant
took little interest in improving his parenting skills and developing a relationship with Lydiah.
Respondent-appellant had not demonstrated that he could provide a safe, suitable home for
Lydiah or otherwise provide for her care. Accordingly, there is not clear evidence, on the whole
record, that termination was not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 364-365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
1
In re Cherish Niedzielski, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
4/14/00 (Docket No. 216339).
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
